Buses versus trains

Monte Wolverton

Letter to the editor in today's SF Chronicle:

Regarding “Preferences change in how to get around” (Bay Area, Jan 2): 

BART and Caltrain serve suburban white collar workers with cars at their disposal, but bus systems enable real inner-city mobility for those without other options. We spend billions on large-scale rail projects for commuters, but bus service languishes in the Bay Area. Why?

Who benefits from rail service? Who benefits from bus service? 

Instead of building a new Transbay Tube in 20 years, get bus lanes on the Bay Bridge today. Instead of SMART from Marin to Sonoma counties, make the bus pads on U.S. 101 top notch. San Francisco Muni’s T-line has been a boon for real estate development, but a failure for many transit riders, as evidenced by the introduction of the 15 bus to supplement rail service.

It is time to stop this nonsense. Bus transit is cheaper, more flexible, scalable, less disruptive and integrated into our communities. Let’s put our rail money into buses and have a lot more to show for it.

Daniel Levy

Oakland

Rob's comment:

Levy is right about buses and rail projects. Take for example California's dumb high-speed rail project, which I've posted about for more than ten years. 

Who "benefits" from that project? Only construction companies and construction unions.

The train fixation by progressives is part of the anti-car movement.